text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
But the second thing I just want to engage is their claim about education being inaccessible within the status quo. The first thing, in reality speaking, this is not correct. In developing nations, environmental education is not solid yet. Feminism education is not solid yet as well. But the second thing is that if it is true that there are people who feel that these things are not urgent, probably then the problem is on education. |
What we argue here in opening opposition is that the restructuring or the allocation of budget can go into lobbying the government, lobbying companies, for example, in order to give access to green technology or green products, for example, or restructuring the form of education that we give to society—not like what we have within the status quo that is just full of jargon, for example, but rather restructuring until the point of creating habits, for example, creating a policy, or creating an activity inside of a camp or village, for example, that you need to eventually take care of the environment. |
Something along that line has proven to be effective in Japan, for example, because of the habituation of these types of individuals. And that is the problem: when you shame individuals, you are shaming them out of their ha bi ts—habits that are unchangeable, habits that have been nurtured in them since childhood, for example. The problem here is how their reception looks like. In so far, if the opening government explains the process of it, I think opening opposition already wins in terms of how we change individuals through the process of changing the curriculum, changing the habituation, and so on. |
The third thing I just want to say is that the burden for opening opposition is not to prove that the status quo will suddenly be good. Probably we also approve that, but the main burden is just to prove that opening government is probably wrong and that the status quo will be better. I just want to highlight several things. The first one is that the reason why shaming is ineffective is also because of the level of shame that happens throughout. |
What I mean by this is they never have the feel that the shaming will be conducted well. In this particular case, social activism leadership usually is centralized in one specific region while the smaller part of the movement is spread among small components. I must say this means that the leader in the regional part usually appointed and the sense of trust and closeness with the constituents comes from the kind of small region from the first place. |
What's the problem with this? The extent of shame is unclear. The aim, however, is clear. I agree with the opening government that the aim is to change the behavior of society. What does it mean to happen? Shame is highly connected with the perpetuation of conflict. When you shame individuals, you tell them that they are dogs, for example, for not abiding by certain laws or for not abiding by environmentally good behavior, for example, or even worse, something may be correlated with feminism, maybe not calling out, quote unquote, sexual assault that they experience, for example—something along that line. |
What's then the problem with this? Number one, the nuance in Omar's argument about unnamed shame is then something that is much easier to comprehend as something that is negative to a general perception of individuals because when you shame a certain individual, you are not learning about their background. This is not a conversation where you ask them how they feel or why they don't do this, something like that. But you call them like an animal, for example, and something along that line. |
Since this is unblenched, then most likely what occurs is that one person that is closely related to your constituents feels that they are also being shamed, feels that the movement is not actually defending them because it is not something that is relatable for them or somethin g that is proximate for them to eventually do. This is why the impact is on three faults. The first one is that the worst type of shame will eventually lead to something that is likely to occur and perpetuate conflict within the region, and this region sees you as somewhat disruptive to the general stability of society. |
But the second thing is also about not protecting the stability internally inside of your own movement because the different perceptions—let's say feminism; feminism has different perceptions internally within their own constituents. Because of that different perception, and because of the continuous shame that you do even toward sexual assault victims, for example, because your aim is what they look for and shame is a legitimate means, they are being seen as your movement being elitist and not defending sexual assault victims, for example, in the process and something along that line. |
But thirdly, why is this important? Because this is directly connected with buy-in from lower-class individuals that are highly connected to developing nations. This is why the nuance of elitism is something that is very easy to eventually buy into this kind of social movement when they continuously shame because they don't care about what people experience on the ground. And those things—before I continue, yes, CG, |
<poi> |
Why would companies care about what environmental movements have to say? |
</poi> |
Okay, so this nicely ties into my third point. The prerequisite of, quote unquote, companies willing to change is that you are able to create buy-in first. Companies don't care; I totally agree. When you call them out, like calling out Taylor, for example, when the majority of Taylor's fans do not care, they will defend Taylor at all costs. When the supporters of Starbucks do not care about the genocide that they committed, Starbucks still prevails. |
But the prerequisite of changing and the prerequisite of going to create the stock going down is that the majority of people agree with the cause. This suggests that it depends on the analysis of why shame can be effective, and what they prove here is that shaming is ineffective, not only with what Omar says but also because it leads to the nuance of elitism that leads the majority of society, which is middle to lower class, to see social movements as a cause that is only disruptive for their lives. |
They see the movement as somewhat insensitive enough to think that they do need to go out and work, for example, inside of— in terms of COVID, for example, that i do need to eventually buy plastic because green bags are fucking too expensive and take too much of my paycheck daily, for example. Why not this crucial? Because donor companies that want to invest in your social cause really depend on public relations, and in so far as the PR will not get any benefit toward them, they will not also give donations as well. So, in the long term, you'll get no benefits of funding as well. Hence, the conclusion of all of that is that you are not only insensitive principally but you're also harming your own movement and cons in the future. Proud to oppose. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
Three response off of my speech. The first is that opening opposition claims social movement has limited forms of capital. I have two responses to this. One, the counterfactual under their model isn't education alone because they, right, you also need to debate how this debate would likely manifest. You need to engage in things that pre-Riot, like protest, in order to actively challenge this kind of individuals at this point of time. The weighing is very simple: shaming is the lowest usage of capital because everyone has access to things like the internet, everyone has access to things like media. It takes much less time for you to organize and do this kind of stuff at a point, which you're able to maximize the preservation of capital. It is good because we still have more money to do other things that you want to talk about rather than spending it all over big types of movement. |
The second problem I have with opening opposition: first, you need to acknowledge, judge, that don't let them screw away by telling all these people who are shaming are all people from the same community, neighbor to each other and whatnot. You must have a clear line drawn between these two groups. One, these are groups of individuals who don't breach certain set of rules, one because of their own wellbeing or two because of the communal wellbeing. The second set of individuals is when they breach this law and they infringe the rights of individuals who are particularly part of a movement who choose not to do the same kinds of mistakes. That's why on the left side, where most people adhere to a certain set of laws, have a collective form of resentment towards the other party. So the other part is already small in number; whether they buy in or whether they don't buy in, it really doesn't make a difference because the largest proponent of the social movement are already sanitized and are already assisting within this movement. |
The second thing: there won't be buying because you don't understand the circumstance of a person who is against the movement. Why is the owner's of feminist movement to understand patriarchy doing this? Why should Black Lives Matter care about the reason and justifications to why privileged white males do this kind of stuff? This is particularly harmful because you're always backpedaling the efforts of social movement. You force them to take a step back and then you have to care about things about why other people do this, why justify to do so. The burden of closing government is very simple: motion uses the word "catalyze" to change. We don't need to show you immediate change; we don't have to show you definitive change, but in so far we can show you the trajectory of people trying to attain change. You have to give this debate to closing government. |
The first thing: what are the myriads of ways that shaming would look like to a person? When a person throws rubbish on the street, you take a photo and put it on social media. Feminist movement calling out men who are narcissists, painting them as beneficiaries of patriarchy. BLM movement calling out white males; all these students are calling out university management for frivolous financial policies, taking photos of people who smoke in public hospitals or restaurant areas and putting them in media. Grab drivers harassing women in cars; you screenshot their profile and attach details to people. All this shows that the purpose of this movement is to bring embarrassment, and the threat of embarrassment is what is going to inhibit someone who's going to do or not going to do something, judge. This characterization is particularly important. At the end of the day, the goal isn't mainly to punish someone; it is the creation of a threat that you would likely be shamed if you do something wrong. That's why you're able to inhibit and deter people before they are able to do so. |
This dilutes a large chunk of opening opposition harm given the under-mechanized education mechanism, because when POI just says, "We will do different and other forms of education," in so far there's no clear pathway to victory. You can't just let them say, "Oh, there's more harm than good, so we're good about this." You need to at least have a remedy to the problem. First piece of extension: why is status quo failing? Notice the selfish and preservation nature of individuals who oftentimes prioritize their own interests is the largest chunk of the problem because it's easier for you to throw rubbish on the floor and street when no one is watching. You don't suffer any forms of repercussion. But number two, there's no communal level supervision. Obviously, the government and police that Umar talks about cannot be everywhere at all points of time, but the communal members can act as eyes and ears everywhere. These are better forms of coverage that allow you to treat and look over people shoulder-to-shoulder much better. |
Secondly, the burden for us to show that this mechanism is catalyzed: why is this likely successful? And here's the debate-winning extension, judge. I'm going to talk to you about the precedent: why law has been a successful form of deterrent. Notice the Austin and Bantam's ideology of sociology that discusses the jurisprudence of threat. This comes in two forms: the internal forms of policing that people have and the external forms of policing that alters the way people behave. This acts as a primary form of deterrence as to how people certainly make decisions or calculus. This analysis is important because the threat of being embarrassed is what makes people change in a bad way. If I throw rubbish today, someone might be watching, but in a world where there's no threat of shaming and it's normalized, nobody's likely willing to hold themselves accountable or hold other people accountable, which is particularly harmful. |
But the second action that this person takes affects the public as a whole. When one person moves during COVID, they are vectors who can spread the disease. These are resentments that other people likely want to deter from happening; that is why we have a better form of buying. When you throw rubbish in a drain, it clogs and causes floods in my fucking house. There's a common accumulated resentment; that's why people likely want to collectivize and stand up against them. Lastly, then, shame is a personalized form of how individuals feel about themselves. This is a missing linkage from opening government because dignity is something people ought to care about for two reasons: one, once you lose your dignity, it is hard for you to repair the name back in the public; but number two, when your dignity is infringed, you feel inferior, culpable, guilty, and demonized by society. Because you want to avoid all these forms of feeling, that's why you don't want to do the negative act in the very first place. Opening opposition. |
<poi> |
If shaming is so accessible that you want it to be a deterrent, which already, by the way, in OG, that everyone can just take a video of you anytime, won't this garner more backlash? Because people think social media are policing them like a mob rather than what we have on our side, which is more buy-in, because people don't understand the cause on your side. |
</poi> |
One, you're not going to simply record people when they do something bad. Obviously, if a grab driver is harassing you, you can show conversation as proof. You see someone throwing rubbish into the sea, you can show someone as proof. There's no incentive for people to waste their time, waste their storage, just to go and record another person. But secondly, Umar, you still haven't proved why you get buy-in under your world. You are a failing movement because nobody is holding accountable against one another. You need to give us the analysis why people are likely able to collectivize because the accumulation of resentment uniquely comes from police government. |
The last piece of extension: just why we allow the most for most minority social movements to experience catharsis: public shaming is the only way we're able to give them retribution and reparation. My rights were denied; I wasn't able to do anything. The state failed me, law failed me, but at least I can take action in my own hands. This ability that empowers people and gives them agency allows people to experience catharsis. This is uniquely important because you give people a chance to at least fight against oppressive structures. You give people a chance to at least make changes when they can't do so, and the load of changes ultimately multiplies when you allow them to collectivize and move together. So proud to propose, |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Um, three, two, one, go. CG is correct. I'm sick and tired of two things in debating. The first is just the assumption that social movements are good just because we say so and are good in and of themselves. And the second is that people buy in just because we all in this debate think they might be right. Just as points out, OG doesn't have fiat. Obviously, it doesn't have counter-fiat over what the counter model thinks. They need to prove the likelihood of it. We're going to more sufficiently explain where political capital actually gets redistributed to do by proving a more likely counterfactual. The first extension we're going to have, explaining specifically why shaming individuals is less effective than the comparative of specifically shaming government and organizational structures. |
The first thing I want to explain is how and why do people shame to eliminate closing government's extension. Obviously, there's a wide variety of examples that could easily get picked up because oppression is a continuum in a vast majority of society, but the vast majority of this tends to be particularly outrageous incidents. There tend to be a few flashpoint examples: Trayvon Martin's, George Floyd, that cause huge amounts of storms that kick up. After this, it is important for the reason these tend to become the most popular. What this means in this brief period of time is that people tend to generally buy into this movement because they tend to be so horrific that most people hint the immoral. But secondly, they're problem-oriented. People are angry; people are upset; people feel their own personal empathetics with this because it’s a feeling the mainstream may hold. |
And what it therefore means is that—and this is going to be important—my second extension. So it therefore means that the vast majority of people do turn out to some degree. The question is how do government respond? Their response to this is because like the issue with the opening government mac. Is The opening government mac is just like "OO," but like through a more complicated route. Opening government goes, "Ah, so like you shame the person, and then the person goes, 'Oh no, it was the government,' and the government goes around." The first and obvious issue with this is that this structurally relies on the fact that you are forced to do this. Often it's people in positions of power who get the capacity to do this. The second issue with this is obvious; it's just "a," but with extra steps. The issue is that if you start shaming someone, you're unlikely to believe the things they say. This becomes specifically important in the way in which government interacts with large and modular protests. |
Because I think opening opposition is a little bit uncharitable here. Like obviously, if we're shaming Harvey Weinstein, like everyone is like, "Ah, like how dare they?" Do you see? Shame is ineffective. And obviously, if we're shaming Timmy who's like gone to do CO for like a job, then like maybe we lose buy-in. I think there's a lack of analysis as to why people are more or less likely to buy in beyond vague assertions. I think realistically what happens, though, is that when you eventually come to some degree of formal things, the issue you face is an issue of deflection. What happens is government organizations say things like the rotten apple narrative: "It was a rotten apple in the force that we needed to take care of." And they structurally ignore making change is for three reasons. The first is the use of deflection to use things like making performative scapegoats in examples where they take individual people and they punish them harshly or excessively as an excuse for not making structural reform. The second is that notably social movements can't persecute everyone all the time in these kinds of high-profile cases, which necessarily always means there will be a fixation on individuals. The vast majority will get away anyway. But the third is there's actually counterintuitively a reduction in deterrence. The fact that you know you can get away with it for the reason social movements are unlikely to come out to every single individual makes it easier to get away with. |
What is the comparative in this debate? Governments understand they want to reduce pressure because shockingly you still need to win swing voters, and things that are broadly horrible tend to be opposed fairly broadly across the voter base. Like, I just don't believe that conservatives are like cool with the abuse of women in sexual assault cases. I think that often what this structurally means is that, generally speaking, governments force some large degree of change. The reason they don't like to do this is because it does affect some degree of powerful people; they have some moderate level of insulation. The top half agrees on. However, if the counterfactual to some degree is losing this, they are more than happy to do this. |
We're going to admit we won't have 100% efficacy, but we're now going to write in the weighing as to why a marginal change in these structures is more important than a harsh change on an individual. The first is that, to some degree, harm is irreversible. It is difficult to get redress for harms that are already committed, and therefore there is just a diminishing margin of redress compared to victims who have yet to be hurt. These are obviously significantly more vulnerable people because they tend to be people who couldn't report in the first place. But secondarily, in just so far as they have yet to be hurt, like we can't reach out to the past and solve issues; we are able to stop issues in the future. |
The final piece of weighing here is again incredibly simple: social movements have large swings in popularity, and there may not be an ability to continually shame into the future. That is to say, for example, Black Lives Matter was incredibly popular between 2020 and 2022. It made large degrees of shaming decisions, but the issue is that regressive leaders still came back for the reason that larger organizational structures still either allowed them—that is to say, allowed people to get into power—or secondly, actively supported them because of the way in which patriarchy ingrains itself into large cultural norms, such as social factors, the people you hang out with, and cultural norms inside institutions like the police. I'll take the POI from opening government. |
<poi> |
Be more upset their efforts are discredited and being called out. So how do you create comp? |
</poi> |
I'm really sorry, I really genuinely couldn't hear you. Opening, could you repeat that again but like shout, like scream at me? |
<poi> |
Okay, people will be more upset if their efforts are discredited and if the privileged are not being called out. How do you create...? |
</poi> |
I just don't think this is true. Like, that's just objectively not how social movements work. Like, I was listening to the vast majority of the government case, and they were saying things like, "Ah, you know, like, because oppression still exists, people like give up on you." Like, we are all aware that racism still exists post-Black Lives Matter. I don't think people are going around like, "Ah, I guess we can't support it anymore." I think the realistic manifestation of this actually is the other way around. When structures refuse to change, you actually get accelerations as more mainstream people realize how fuck it up it is. |
The reason for this is that people in the mainstream tend to not realize how structurally racist organizations are because it's more convenient to believe them to be more empathetic if you are actively benefiting from them. A really simple example of this is the Arab Spring, where the vast majority of people who were moderately clerical and moderately Muslim didn't really care about the authoritarian government up until the government started cracking down and refusing to cooperate, which made protests grow more because people realized how much worse it was. So actually, that mechanism works the other way around. |
The second extension is incredibly simple: sometimes social movements are bad, and this is true. And they like these tend to be significantly worse. What are we talking about there? You know, like the Why you Gay interview? Do you know the guy, Past December? The guy they interviewed ran huge degrees of massively homophobic social movements and structurally stripped the rights of LGBT people across Central Africa. The massive import of Wahhabis Islam and other forms of Islam through Northern Africa has massively regressed the rights of women. The current processes in the Middle East are stripping away what little protections there are and the increasing reduction of individuals' rights in countries like Myanmar. |
Why do these tend to be the areas where this kind of shame happens the most? The first is the reason that the cases there is not a structure in the counterfactual to shame. They tend to be cases where people are innocent. There are two reasons: the first, oppression comes from relations of power; people are able to oppress other people. And secondarily, this historic nature often means the world used to be significantly less powerfully democratic, so the powerful intersected very heavily with those who were doing the oppression. |
Obviously, what that means is that most structures tend to be ingrained with either cultures or literal policies that promote these ideologies. However, obviously, if there isn't a structure to do so, the vast majority of people are not be in relations of power and therefore don't have the capacity or the incentive to engage in oppression to begin with. But the second thing to explain here is why this mechanism happens the most. The first is moral authority; you need to claim a moral right. So structures like religion that go after women, saying that they don't have the right to work or that Western behavior is immoral and they should not engage in, are more effective. |
Second, they have an easier ability to gain mainstream buy-in. It is harder to fight structures of oppression, and so shame is a more effective method when backlash is less likely. Thirdly, generic popular bind: the intersection of different power structures makes it easier to oppress people. The weighing is simple: these are the most vulnerable people who are hurt the most. Even if we don't get a benefit, we definitely avoid a harm. |
Very happy to win proposing opposition. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
I don't think this debate can be won on a negative case in the instance that you don't prove any forms of change within this matter. When you have two government teams clearly telling you why change happens, it is a debate that has to clearly go to the government bench. But the first thing that I want to do is differentiate ourselves from OG in terms of the mechanism on how we create this change in the first place. OG falters in this very instance because they simply tell you that people feel shame and this is a psychological impact. |
I'm going to go more at the point of which you don't overcome a shame threshold of individual things like Pride are things that you can insulate yourself with, which is what CG's extension then is still damaging to OG. The point at which we tell you that this mechanism happens in terms of emotions, at the point of which people want to be seen as good and righteous, is when shaming that affects their emotions and shakes their very perception of their current individual morality is when you tend to have that ability to want to shape or want to make some form of changes within your life. |
I'm going to explain why this is very important when it comes to these particular actors of people at the top who just have the capacity to do so. The second thing then is how do we affect people on the top? I think this is where OG loses because they're not able to answer why the instance of how they can isolate or impact these people when CG tells you that they have CO tells you they have the ability to ice. The first thing we tell you is social movements have the ability to leverage things like collective identity. This is when you create a collective identity in order for you to strengthen and have a singular form of ability to have the resources. I think this is the point at which people always want to feel included because at the point of which they are isolated is something that individuals hate. These are things capitalized over by people like influencers, your Taylor Swift, and your everyday people who post vlogs—people who want to be included within this movement. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.